All of our screening is done by a 3rd party screening company based on our published criteria.
[redacted] contacted us via email on the afternoon of Monday, November 21. At that time, we were waiting for instructions from our client (the property owner) on how he would like to proceed...
given the news of the lease-break. I was out in the field all day on Tuesday for inspections and contacted [redacted] on Wednesday detailing the releasing process and informing her that the owner is still considering his options. I instructed her that the owner was going to let us know by the end of the holiday weekend and that I would have an answer on Monday. She was okay with waiting through the weekend. Thereafter, I responded within hours of receiving each email which amounted to multiple per day. On Monday, I let her know the property owner’s decision and she decided to proceed with submitting an application.
[redacted] specifically indicated on her application that she did not have any pets and she did not inquire about pets prior to processing. I confirmed with her if she would like to proceed with processing her application which she then asked me to proceed.
Screening was completed by our 3rd party screening company at 3:59pm on Wednesday, November 30th. No additional information was pulled in regards to [redacted]’s application beyond that date and time. At 3:39pm on Wednesday, November 30th, we received an inquiry from [redacted] noting that she is considering bringing her family dog. We did not have any specific information about the dog until 5:15pm on the same night, when she stated again she was not positive she will even bring him. At that time, I had not yet reviewed the results from the screening company, which unbeknownst to me had already completed. As such, the denial of her pet was not a factor in the screening determination. [redacted]’s screening results were based on our published criteria. She acknowledged she read through the criteria at the time she submitted the application. We are not at liberty to discuss the particulars of [redacted]’s screening with any 3rd party.
With all of this in consideration, we are unable to refund the application fee which was paid directly to the 3rd party screening company.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Pet policies are material to renters. An inaccurate statement of a policy is important to any decision to rent. "Case-by-case" is in no way defined as a blanket ban. The English language has specific definitions of words so that we can communicate effectively with one another. Two contradictory terms cannot be used interchangeably, no matter how much Dylan wishes they could be. I revoked authorization because of a sudden ban on the one type of breed I was interested in bringing. Dylan was trying to effectively deny me, because they are not truly interested in renting the house. Which is also why it is still not rented, even though it is priced to meet the market and advertised. Their 3rd party denied me because I revoked authorization. They were no longer allowed to verify those elements, because Dylan offered for me to withdraw and I accepted. He cannot then come back and say "whoops, turns out they denied you immediately without checking anything." That's unrealistic. He's back tracking. Dylan materially misrepresented their pet policy, and now wants to find a way to avoid responsibility.Sincerely,[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Contrary to what Dylan believes, pet policies are material to most renters' decision. I stated I do not own a dog, and I do not. However, when you rent a home, it is important to know the animal policy for any future pet choices. This home is in a high crime neighborhood, so I was considering bringing a family dog. The current renter, whom I work closely with, has a large boxer that was approved by the rental agency and home owner. Given that I was interested in a lease takeover, I was aware of their allowance of large dogs, and I had no reason to believe those terms would change. In fact, in my first communication with Dylan, I specifically told him that I wanted to take the house under the terms of her lease. I authorized the application, and told Dylan I was considering bringing the dog and I wanted to know the deposit. Dylan responded on 11/30 at 4:32pm stating that all pets were handled
on a "case-by-case" basis, and the owner would be the person to decide. I responded with my dog's information, and Dylan responded at 5:16pm that there was a blanket ban on the non-aggressive breed I listed. (I contacted other leasing agents in the area, and none classified a purebred white shepherd as "aggressive". It's not standard in the industry). I asked Dylan where the blanket ban policy was located, because their "application process" contains very specific policies and this was not under there. Dylan responded at 5:29pm that this information was not publicly available. I again demanded where I could have found this information prior to authorization, because I knew large dogs were approved at that rental. At 5:54pm Dylan told me that each animal is dealt with on a "case-by-case" basis, and that my family pet is denied. He then asked if I "would like to withdraw your application", at which point I immediately withdrew the application and revoked all authorization to investigate my references or personal information. I received no response from Dylan until 12/1 at 12:55pm stating that my application was denied. There was no investigation on me. There was no income verification, there was no prior landlord contacted. Dylan claims that they found something "publicly" that was so offense I was immediately denied. However, there is nothing in my background that conflicted with their rental requirements. The WSBA recently did a much more thorough background check on me and turned up with nothing -- because there is nothing. The investigation did not move further because I revoked authorization, not because I was denied from public records. Further, at 5:54pm on 11/30 (after their 3rd party had closed for the day), Dylan told me that the dog was the one being denied and offered to withdraw my application because it was still being processed.Dylan materially misrepresented their pet policy. He said it was case-by-case, which means each animal is given individual consideration. He then told me that his company actually has a blanket ban on that specific breed. Those terms are not interchangeable -- banning entire breeds is not "case-by-case". As stated previously, Brink has incentive to not rent this unit. The owner wants to sell soon, and their current renter is liable through October. I withdrew my application at the opportunity he offered me, due to his material misrepresentation, and I was never actually screened. Sincerely,[redacted]
As I have stated multiple times - the screening had completed by the 3rd party, unbeknownst to me, prior to receiving any pet information. You are correct in that if I saw those results, we would not have had the pet discussion. However, I had not seen those results until the next day.
I again encourage you to contact the 3rd party screening company on the phone number previously provided. They will be able to detail the results of your screening and address any dispute you may have. The results are based on the published criteria.
To reiterate, the pet discussion is irrelevant as the results of your screening had completed prior to receiving any information.
I am sorry that you feel you were treated unfairly and we would like to address your concerns as clearly as possible. Upon your notice to terminate your lease, you had requested that we do not advertise the property for re-lease until you vacated. After you vacated, we promptly started advertising...
and arranging for repairs. We were able wipe down the walls, patch holes, and apply touch-up paint where necessary. After a few showings, we were getting reports of odors in the condo. Thereafter, the carpet cleaners notified us that they are unable to salvage the carpets due to an excessive amount of cat urine. As such, we had to arrange for estimates for a full carpet replacement. At this time, we had to pull down advertising until we were able to make the necessary repairs. We did not charge you for the replacement of the carpets, just the replacement of the pad and pet seal. We then had to arrange for cleaners to come in due messes left behind from your move-out.Due to the termination of the lease and the expenses incurred for the move-out, the owner decided to sell the condo. The termination fee went to reimburse the owner for the leasing fee paid to us for establishing your rental contract. This fee is based on a percentage of the guaranteed rental income through the end of the lease. Because this contract was not fulfilled, the owner had to be reimbursed a proportionate share of the fee paid for rent not collected.Due to the work necessary, the owner was not able to list the home for sale until after May. It is our obligation to our client to enforce the contract where reasonable. The owner wanted to charge rent through June but we advised that this would be an unreasonable charge. As such, we feel we were fair and just during this process.
All of our screening is done by a 3rd party screening company based on our published criteria.
[redacted] contacted us via email on the afternoon of Monday, November 21. At that time, we were waiting for instructions from our client (the property owner) on how he would like to proceed...
given the news of the lease-break. I was out in the field all day on Tuesday for inspections and contacted [redacted] on Wednesday detailing the releasing process and informing her that the owner is still considering his options. I instructed her that the owner was going to let us know by the end of the holiday weekend and that I would have an answer on Monday. She was okay with waiting through the weekend. Thereafter, I responded within hours of receiving each email which amounted to multiple per day. On Monday, I let her know the property owner’s decision and she decided to proceed with submitting an application.
[redacted] specifically indicated on her application that she did not have any pets and she did not inquire about pets prior to processing. I confirmed with her if she would like to proceed with processing her application which she then asked me to proceed.
Screening was completed by our 3rd party screening company at 3:59pm on Wednesday, November 30th. No additional information was pulled in regards to [redacted]’s application beyond that date and time. At 3:39pm on Wednesday, November 30th, we received an inquiry from [redacted] noting that she is considering bringing her family dog. We did not have any specific information about the dog until 5:15pm on the same night, when she stated again she was not positive she will even bring him. At that time, I had not yet reviewed the results from the screening company, which unbeknownst to me had already completed. As such, the denial of her pet was not a factor in the screening determination. [redacted]’s screening results were based on our published criteria. She acknowledged she read through the criteria at the time she submitted the application. We are not at liberty to discuss the particulars of [redacted]’s screening with any 3rd party.
With all of this in consideration, we are unable to refund the application fee which was paid directly to the 3rd party screening company.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Pet policies are material to renters. An inaccurate statement of a policy is important to any decision to rent. "Case-by-case" is in no way defined as a blanket ban. The English language has specific definitions of words so that we can communicate effectively with one another. Two contradictory terms cannot be used interchangeably, no matter how much Dylan wishes they could be. I revoked authorization because of a sudden ban on the one type of breed I was interested in bringing. Dylan was trying to effectively deny me, because they are not truly interested in renting the house. Which is also why it is still not rented, even though it is priced to meet the market and advertised. Their 3rd party denied me because I revoked authorization. They were no longer allowed to verify those elements, because Dylan offered for me to withdraw and I accepted. He cannot then come back and say "whoops, turns out they denied you immediately without checking anything." That's unrealistic. He's back tracking. Dylan materially misrepresented their pet policy, and now wants to find a way to avoid responsibility.Sincerely,[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Contrary to what Dylan believes, pet policies are material to most renters' decision. I stated I do not own a dog, and I do not. However, when you rent a home, it is important to know the animal policy for any future pet choices. This home is in a high crime neighborhood, so I was considering bringing a family dog. The current renter, whom I work closely with, has a large boxer that was approved by the rental agency and home owner. Given that I was interested in a lease takeover, I was aware of their allowance of large dogs, and I had no reason to believe those terms would change. In fact, in my first communication with Dylan, I specifically told him that I wanted to take the house under the terms of her lease. I authorized the application, and told Dylan I was considering bringing the dog and I wanted to know the deposit. Dylan responded on 11/30 at 4:32pm stating that all pets were handled
on a "case-by-case" basis, and the owner would be the person to decide. I responded with my dog's information, and Dylan responded at 5:16pm that there was a blanket ban on the non-aggressive breed I listed. (I contacted other leasing agents in the area, and none classified a purebred white shepherd as "aggressive". It's not standard in the industry). I asked Dylan where the blanket ban policy was located, because their "application process" contains very specific policies and this was not under there. Dylan responded at 5:29pm that this information was not publicly available. I again demanded where I could have found this information prior to authorization, because I knew large dogs were approved at that rental. At 5:54pm Dylan told me that each animal is dealt with on a "case-by-case" basis, and that my family pet is denied. He then asked if I "would like to withdraw your application", at which point I immediately withdrew the application and revoked all authorization to investigate my references or personal information. I received no response from Dylan until 12/1 at 12:55pm stating that my application was denied. There was no investigation on me. There was no income verification, there was no prior landlord contacted. Dylan claims that they found something "publicly" that was so offense I was immediately denied. However, there is nothing in my background that conflicted with their rental requirements. The WSBA recently did a much more thorough background check on me and turned up with nothing -- because there is nothing. The investigation did not move further because I revoked authorization, not because I was denied from public records. Further, at 5:54pm on 11/30 (after their 3rd party had closed for the day), Dylan told me that the dog was the one being denied and offered to withdraw my application because it was still being processed.Dylan materially misrepresented their pet policy. He said it was case-by-case, which means each animal is given individual consideration. He then told me that his company actually has a blanket ban on that specific breed. Those terms are not interchangeable -- banning entire breeds is not "case-by-case". As stated previously, Brink has incentive to not rent this unit. The owner wants to sell soon, and their current renter is liable through October. I withdrew my application at the opportunity he offered me, due to his material misrepresentation, and I was never actually screened. Sincerely,[redacted]
As I have stated multiple times - the screening had completed by the 3rd party, unbeknownst to me, prior to receiving any pet information. You are correct in that if I saw those results, we would not have had the pet discussion. However, I had not seen those results until the next day.
I again encourage you to contact the 3rd party screening company on the phone number previously provided. They will be able to detail the results of your screening and address any dispute you may have. The results are based on the published criteria.
To reiterate, the pet discussion is irrelevant as the results of your screening had completed prior to receiving any information.
I am sorry that you feel you were treated unfairly and we would like to address your concerns as clearly as possible. Upon your notice to terminate your lease, you had requested that we do not advertise the property for re-lease until you vacated. After you vacated, we promptly started advertising...
and arranging for repairs. We were able wipe down the walls, patch holes, and apply touch-up paint where necessary. After a few showings, we were getting reports of odors in the condo. Thereafter, the carpet cleaners notified us that they are unable to salvage the carpets due to an excessive amount of cat urine. As such, we had to arrange for estimates for a full carpet replacement. At this time, we had to pull down advertising until we were able to make the necessary repairs. We did not charge you for the replacement of the carpets, just the replacement of the pad and pet seal. We then had to arrange for cleaners to come in due messes left behind from your move-out.Due to the termination of the lease and the expenses incurred for the move-out, the owner decided to sell the condo. The termination fee went to reimburse the owner for the leasing fee paid to us for establishing your rental contract. This fee is based on a percentage of the guaranteed rental income through the end of the lease. Because this contract was not fulfilled, the owner had to be reimbursed a proportionate share of the fee paid for rent not collected.Due to the work necessary, the owner was not able to list the home for sale until after May. It is our obligation to our client to enforce the contract where reasonable. The owner wanted to charge rent through June but we advised that this would be an unreasonable charge. As such, we feel we were fair and just during this process.